Search results

Ok, let's all read it again together, shall we? Let's go line by line: Amyraldism should not be equated with 4 point Calvinism. Amyraldism {NOT=TO} 4-Pointer 4-Pointers are bad, according to Phil. The don't have a coherent explanation of the atonement. So, Phil would not HONOR...

Well, according to Phil, he "wouldn't glorify their position [four-pointers] by labeling it Amyraldism." In other words, he affirms Amyraldism is still a 5 point system. Amyraldism is still Calvinism according to Phil.

Note that Phil believes that Amyraldists are still 5 pointers: So, Steve's conclusion that Amyraldism is not Calvinism isn't even affirmed by his source. :) Also, note that even some of the scholars themselves label their views differently than Phil did here: Either way, they are ALL...

One, Phil is not writing the canon here. He can be questioned, right? Two, all those groups from Amyraldism over are still considered "Calvinistic," by most mainstream and respected Calvinistic scholars. They see them as delineations of reformed theology, but still "reformed." You don't...

You are not allowed to quote or even refer to what you think I said anymore. You get it wrong about 98.6% of the time. I did speak of man's deficiency once but it wasn't in the context of defining sin. Stick with exact quotes or leave me out of your absurd posts.

I stumbled upon the Puritan thread discussing this exact subject, but ironically the Arminians were making the case that evil was merely the absense of good. Here is the reply of one Calvinist: Here is another... and... I thought these might help to see there is more to this matter from...

The absence of something can't be the cause of something. There must be another factor involved otherwise its "nothing causing something." For example, the absence of heat alone doesn't make ice. A created substance must exist with the characteristics that it will turn to ice when those...

The problem with this logic is that it ignores the ultimate reason they are "on their way to hell" and "unable to respond to the divine appeal to be reconciled." In the Calvinistic system, the reason they are condemned to a totally depraved nature from birth is because God so decreed it, so...

Yes, I get that you think something was created by nothing. And I get that you dismiss that contradiction it as being irrelevant to this discussion. That is funny to me.

This is the most clear and blatant example of the fallacy called "False Dichotomy" I've ever seen.

Now, can you make sure Steve and JD see this answer so they will stop defending every Calvinist here as if they walk in lock step with Hodge? :smilewinkgrin:

Of course I'm not in agreement with him. He is a Calvinist. I'm not. He holds to a view of Particular Redemption that I disagree with. How many times do I need to explain this? I'm pointing to ONE aspect of the distinction regarding the sufficiency of Christ's atonement which some seem...

Why would someone who calls himself a Christian say something like this to another brother in Christ? Does it make you feel better about yourself to tear someone else down? Children in the play yard bully each other with this kind of talk but certainly we can move beyond that level of...

Oh, it is? Ok. :laugh:

We'll at least you understand plan enough english to see that I'm in agreement with Hodge and you are not on this particular point. :thumbsup:

Such an accusation demands one to explain what the correct context and thus alternate understanding should be taken from Hodge, but I doubt you'll actually take the time to do such because its easier to make blanket unfounded accusations and dismiss the argument out of hand... Actually, in this...

Came across another clarifying quote from Hodge: He states that the atonement has objectively "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men." I think this phrase is the most concise way to clarify the intent I was attempting to show in this thread. Do you agree with Hodge that the...

Steve, I thought this might help. It's a post from a Calvinistic believer in another forum defending Hodge's view and contrasting it with the other views. Maybe this will clarify my intent:

Actually, he is saying MORE than that. He is saying that while Christ's intent was ONLY to provide atonement for all who will come (the elect), that in doing so He did all that was necessary for EVERYONE. I want you to notice something, Steve. Look at the contrast he draws here: "Christ...

No I wouldn't, but that is another subject. This thread is about the atonement, not Total Inability or Irresistibility.